99% evolutionists, suggestion for site maker

Sight? As in, "This site is quite a sight?" The initial concept was a site where any view was permitted and the only requirements were to follow forum guidelines, which were to be neutral with regard to viewpoint. The reality has been that Creationists have found one of the guidelines to be especially daunting:

4. Bare assertions on controversial points should be avoided by providing supporting evidence or argument. Once challenged, support for any assertion should be provided.

For the most part, Creationists have been unable to muster evidence to support their positions, with the unfortunate result that most give up and move on, or never join in the first place. This is true, I'm an evolutionist, but my moderation of the site is not biased for or against either side. All I do is enforce the guidelines. Coincidentally, I just replied to a similar point in another thread. Of course evolutionists agree with one other. There is, after all, only one theory of evolution. Certainly at the frontiers of knowledge where new theory is developed there is much argument and disagreement in scientific circles, but discussion at sites like this is generally much more mundane, such as whether evolution really happened or not. There's simply nothing for evolutionists to disagree about at this level of detail, so naturally we "quietly agree." It would make as much sense for me to complain about the "quiet agreement" of Christians about the saving grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Why don't you invite some genuine creation scientists to participate here? Now, let's see, who should you invite? Hugh Ross, who believes the earth is billions of years old? Ken Ham, who believes the earth is 6,000 years old? Michael Behe, who accepts evolution but believes that many microbiological structures were intelligently designed by some unnamed outside agent? Duane Gish, who believes there was a vapor canopy providing the water for the flood? Russ Humphreys, who thinks general relativity makes it possible for the earth to be 6,000 years old while the universe is billions of years old? Werner Gitt, who believes that information theory proves evolution is impossible?Do you see the problem? You bemoan the fact that Creationists here seem isolated and non-supportive of each other when beset by roving gangs of evolutionists, but even if you succeeded in getting the leading creation scientists to participate here you'd still have the same problem, because none of them agree with each other. And the reason for that is that their views are not based upon evidence, and evidence is one of the key requirements for formulating valid scientific theories. Interesting signature. Have you ever asked yourself who decides what is truth and what is not?------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Well, yes and no. Evolutionists who fail to support assertions with evidence are far less often called on the carpet, mostly because it is so hard for me to notice since I fill in the missing information in my own mind automatically. On the other hand, Creationists Peter Borger and salty were treated for months with broad leniency, primarily at the request of evolutionists who wanted to debate them whether they adhered to the guidelines or not. Also, we have two Creationist moderators, but neither are active of late. I'm only biased in the sense that I have already formed a firm opinion. That doesn't mean my mind isn't open to considering new evidence.You would be unlikely to find someone informed who doesn't fall into one camp or the other. Pathetic.------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

By what means did you arrive at your knowledge of the supernatural, and how are others to assess its relative validity vis-à-vis other opposing supernatural views? The Creationist goal is to counter the inroads of secular thinking on their religious culture by seeking representation of Creationism within public school science classrooms. To that end they have made great efforts to achieve status as science. Given this history, does it really make any sense to demean science as a mere "secularist ideology" when Creationism wants so much to be a part of it? The role of evidence is to support theory, not to prove theory. And theories are developed to explain and make sense of evidence. What you're actually describing is the dilemma you face when the offer of opinion as answer to evidence is deemed unacceptable.------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Sounds good to me! I'd be glad to replace the current set of moderators, myself included, with a qualified neutral party or parties. Naturally I would retain ownership and control, since I pay the bills, write the software and maintain the site. Send me a list of neutral candidates and I'll begin the interview process.------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Hi messenjaH!There's a little reply button at the bottom of each message. If you use it then messages gain links to and from your reply. When you don't use it then it can be difficult to figure out who you're replying to. You should avoid the big "Post Reply" buttons that appear at the top of bottom of message pages unless you're really not replying to anyone.------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator